Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Clarification on the meaning of atheism -- Re: Painus Comes Clean
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jun 28, 2012, 1:25:30 PM6/28/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:43:45 -0700
"Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jshi9r$ic0$7...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>> On 6/28/2012 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>>> "God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the
>>> creator of the Universe." -Painus
>>
>> Here's the full post where he utter this statement.....
[snip]
>> God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the creator
>> of the Universe. And atheists don't "believe" anything, you roto
>> rooter! Atheists "lack belief", which is, of course, just as wild a
>> guess as the theists' belief. Hence the fact that both theism and
>> atheism are based on faith... and blind faith alone.
>
> As usual, Painintheass got it wrong.
> Atheists believe there is no god.
I don't agree. An atheist is "absent of belief in deities and
supernatural agents" which is very different from believing that there
isn't a diety (e.g., a god or a goddess):
http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheist.pl
You see, the "a" in atheism means "without," thus "atheism" means
"without theism." It's based on the Ancient Greek word " ἄθεος " (or
"atheos") which means "without a deity" ("godless" or "godessless").
> It is not incumbent upon them to prove ... that there is ... Nothing.
I agree because atheism isn't making any claim about the existence or
non-existence of deities and supernatural agents.
An important tangent to note, however, is that making an outright
statement that there is no god is an anti-theistic position that also
carries a burden of proof (although this doesn't necessarily exclude one
from also being atheist). Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
Even the agnostics have a slight burden of proof with their "neutral"
position that contends that it is "presently not possible to prove nor
disprove the existence of deities and supernatural agents." (I view
this as slightly biased toward theism, but that's a minor quibble that
I willingly concede because the contention seems functionally neutral.)
> Theists believe there is a god and a creator. The burden of proof
> is on them. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is half and half.
> What are the odds ....
That's logical.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Human behaviour flows from three main sources: Desire, Emotion, and
Knowledge."
-- Plato of Athens
"Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jshi9r$ic0$7...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>> On 6/28/2012 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>>> "God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the
>>> creator of the Universe." -Painus
>>
>> Here's the full post where he utter this statement.....
[snip]
>> God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the creator
>> of the Universe. And atheists don't "believe" anything, you roto
>> rooter! Atheists "lack belief", which is, of course, just as wild a
>> guess as the theists' belief. Hence the fact that both theism and
>> atheism are based on faith... and blind faith alone.
>
> As usual, Painintheass got it wrong.
> Atheists believe there is no god.
I don't agree. An atheist is "absent of belief in deities and
supernatural agents" which is very different from believing that there
isn't a diety (e.g., a god or a goddess):
http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheist.pl
You see, the "a" in atheism means "without," thus "atheism" means
"without theism." It's based on the Ancient Greek word " ἄθεος " (or
"atheos") which means "without a deity" ("godless" or "godessless").
> It is not incumbent upon them to prove ... that there is ... Nothing.
I agree because atheism isn't making any claim about the existence or
non-existence of deities and supernatural agents.
An important tangent to note, however, is that making an outright
statement that there is no god is an anti-theistic position that also
carries a burden of proof (although this doesn't necessarily exclude one
from also being atheist). Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
Even the agnostics have a slight burden of proof with their "neutral"
position that contends that it is "presently not possible to prove nor
disprove the existence of deities and supernatural agents." (I view
this as slightly biased toward theism, but that's a minor quibble that
I willingly concede because the contention seems functionally neutral.)
> Theists believe there is a god and a creator. The burden of proof
> is on them. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is half and half.
> What are the odds ....
That's logical.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Human behaviour flows from three main sources: Desire, Emotion, and
Knowledge."
-- Plato of Athens
Hägar
Jun 28, 2012, 4:32:01 PM6/28/12
to
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com>
wrote in message news:20120628102530....@fidemturbare.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:43:45 -0700
> "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jshi9r$ic0$7...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>>> On 6/28/2012 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>>
>>>> "God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the
>>>> creator of the Universe." -Painus
>>>
>>> Here's the full post where he utter this statement.....
> [snip]
>>> God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the creator
>>> of the Universe. And atheists don't "believe" anything, you roto
>>> rooter! Atheists "lack belief", which is, of course, just as wild a
>>> guess as the theists' belief. Hence the fact that both theism and
>>> atheism are based on faith... and blind faith alone.
>>
>> As usual, Painintheass got it wrong.
>> Atheists believe there is no god.
>
> I don't agree. An atheist is "absent of belief in deities and
> supernatural agents" which is very different from believing that there
> isn't a diety (e.g., a god or a goddess):
>
> http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheist.pl
>
> You see, the "a" in atheism means "without," thus "atheism" means
> "without theism." It's based on the Ancient Greek word " ????? " (or
> "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jshi9r$ic0$7...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>>> On 6/28/2012 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>>
>>>> "God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the
>>>> creator of the Universe." -Painus
>>>
>>> Here's the full post where he utter this statement.....
> [snip]
>>> God is believed to be superior, supernatural, divine and the creator
>>> of the Universe. And atheists don't "believe" anything, you roto
>>> rooter! Atheists "lack belief", which is, of course, just as wild a
>>> guess as the theists' belief. Hence the fact that both theism and
>>> atheism are based on faith... and blind faith alone.
>>
>> As usual, Painintheass got it wrong.
>> Atheists believe there is no god.
>
> I don't agree. An atheist is "absent of belief in deities and
> supernatural agents" which is very different from believing that there
> isn't a diety (e.g., a god or a goddess):
>
> http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheist.pl
>
> You see, the "a" in atheism means "without," thus "atheism" means
> "atheos") which means "without a deity" ("godless" or "godessless").
>
>> It is not incumbent upon them to prove ... that there is ... Nothing.
>
> I agree because atheism isn't making any claim about the existence or
> non-existence of deities and supernatural agents.
>
> An important tangent to note, however, is that making an outright
> statement that there is no god is an anti-theistic position that also
> carries a burden of proof (although this doesn't necessarily exclude one
> from also being atheist). Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>
> Even the agnostics have a slight burden of proof with their "neutral"
> position that contends that it is "presently not possible to prove nor
> disprove the existence of deities and supernatural agents." (I view
> this as slightly biased toward theism, but that's a minor quibble that
> I willingly concede because the contention seems functionally neutral.)
>
>> Theists believe there is a god and a creator. The burden of proof
>> is on them. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is half and half.
>> What are the odds ....
>
> That's logical.
>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Human behaviour flows from three main sources: Desire, Emotion, and
> Knowledge."
> -- Plato of Athens
Saying that Atheism is a faith is like saying that non-smoking
>
>> It is not incumbent upon them to prove ... that there is ... Nothing.
>
> I agree because atheism isn't making any claim about the existence or
> non-existence of deities and supernatural agents.
>
> An important tangent to note, however, is that making an outright
> statement that there is no god is an anti-theistic position that also
> carries a burden of proof (although this doesn't necessarily exclude one
> from also being atheist). Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>
> Even the agnostics have a slight burden of proof with their "neutral"
> position that contends that it is "presently not possible to prove nor
> disprove the existence of deities and supernatural agents." (I view
> this as slightly biased toward theism, but that's a minor quibble that
> I willingly concede because the contention seems functionally neutral.)
>
>> Theists believe there is a god and a creator. The burden of proof
>> is on them. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is half and half.
>> What are the odds ....
>
> That's logical.
>
> --
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Human behaviour flows from three main sources: Desire, Emotion, and
> Knowledge."
> -- Plato of Athens
is a habit.
Doug Freyburger
Jun 28, 2012, 5:04:59 PM6/28/12
to
Hägar wrote:
>
> Saying that Atheism is a faith is like saying that non-smoking
> is a habit.
Until you observe their behavior. Especially since you capitalized the
>
> Saying that Atheism is a faith is like saying that non-smoking
> is a habit.
word to push its meaning away from agnostic. Which is one such item of
behavior.
Christopher A. Lee
Jun 28, 2012, 5:11:46 PM6/28/12
to
meant agnostic.
And what "behaviour" were you objecting to?
The fact that we no longer put up with being the Uncle Toms so-called
"polite" society expects and are finally speaking out?
HVAC
Jun 28, 2012, 5:17:46 PM6/28/12
to
On 6/28/2012 4:32 PM, Hägar wrote:
>
> Saying that Atheism is a faith is like saying that non-smoking
> is a habit.
LOL! Good one.
>
> Saying that Atheism is a faith is like saying that non-smoking
> is a habit.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Smiler
Jun 28, 2012, 11:03:56 PM6/28/12
to
position.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jun 29, 2012, 5:10:12 AM6/29/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Bill Maher
Eagle
Jun 29, 2012, 9:43:59 AM6/29/12
to
Christopher A. Lee explained on 6/28/2012 :
--
Eagle
you dysfunctional maggot-OldGringo38
> The fact that we no longer put up with being the Uncle Toms so-called
> "polite" society expects and are finally speaking out?
Who are "We"?
> "polite" society expects and are finally speaking out?
--
Eagle
you dysfunctional maggot-OldGringo38
Eagle
Jun 29, 2012, 9:47:25 AM6/29/12
to
Smiler brought next idea :
sexual opportunity.
On the otherhand...I don't. :D
> Saying that atheism is a faith is like saying that abstinence is a sex
> position.
It is. You take the position of abstinence when confronted with a
> position.
sexual opportunity.
On the otherhand...I don't. :D
Zerkon
Jun 29, 2012, 9:59:41 AM6/29/12
to
In article <20120628102530....@fidemturbare.com>,
god...@fidemturbare.com says...
label relative to the belief ('without god' is relative to god). An
atheist has the burden to prove they do not believe just as a theists
must prove they do. The logical burden is not on proving a god exists or
not.
god...@fidemturbare.com says...
> Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>
>
A person with an absence of belief would not accept or even know of any
> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>
>
label relative to the belief ('without god' is relative to god). An
atheist has the burden to prove they do not believe just as a theists
must prove they do. The logical burden is not on proving a god exists or
not.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jun 29, 2012, 4:37:09 PM6/29/12
to
such as to prove that they don't collect stamps (except for people who
collect stamps, of course), etc.
Your attempt to use my absence in belief as a vehicle to justify
assigning a burden onto me is a manipulative tactic that attempts to
force me to take a position, a position that I would then have to
defend if you then took the option to engage in debate with me. I have
no feelings of security or insecurity in my absence of belief in
deities and supernatural agents, because there's no need to defend that
which simply isn't a position.
In my estimation, you are clearly frustrated with my lack of position
because for you it's probably very much like conversing with a brick
wall that isn't there. Your motivation is likely to engage in debate
with me on a playing field that you can comprehend, but I have no
interest in playing a negative, neutral, or positive role on that field.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
hairstyle."
-- Bob Casanova (March 28, 2012)
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jun 29, 2012, 4:39:12 PM6/29/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:47:25 -0700
Eagle <deag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Smiler brought next idea :
>
>> Saying that atheism is a faith is like saying that abstinence is a
>> sex position.
>
> It is. You take the position of abstinence when confronted with a
> sexual opportunity.
> On the otherhand...I don't. :D
Are you not worried about catching a disease? (See my signature for a
Eagle <deag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Smiler brought next idea :
>
>> Saying that atheism is a faith is like saying that abstinence is a
>> sex position.
>
> It is. You take the position of abstinence when confronted with a
> sexual opportunity.
> On the otherhand...I don't. :D
wise afterthought on this matter.)
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Waldo Tunnel (January 15, 2012)
Mike Lovell
Jun 29, 2012, 4:56:11 PM6/29/12
to
On 2012-06-29, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> [...]
I've repeated this many times in the main threat, but he's Painius'
position:
I don't believe
= I lack belief
= Atheist
~ AND ~
I don't lack belief (a double negative everywhere but in his mind)
= I have belief (double negative removed)
= Theist
Impossible.
--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder
> [...]
I've repeated this many times in the main threat, but he's Painius'
position:
I don't believe
= I lack belief
= Atheist
~ AND ~
I don't lack belief (a double negative everywhere but in his mind)
= I have belief (double negative removed)
= Theist
Impossible.
--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder
Eagle
Jun 29, 2012, 6:42:33 PM6/29/12
to
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess presented the following
explanation :
explanation :
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:47:25 -0700
> Eagle <deag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Smiler brought next idea :
>>
>>> Saying that atheism is a faith is like saying that abstinence is a
>>> sex position.
>>
>> It is. You take the position of abstinence when confronted with a
>> sexual opportunity.
>> On the otherhand...I don't. :D
>
> Are you not worried about catching a disease? (See my signature for a
> wise afterthought on this matter.)
I can't catch a disease. I'm married!
> Eagle <deag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Smiler brought next idea :
>>
>>> Saying that atheism is a faith is like saying that abstinence is a
>>> sex position.
>>
>> It is. You take the position of abstinence when confronted with a
>> sexual opportunity.
>> On the otherhand...I don't. :D
>
> Are you not worried about catching a disease? (See my signature for a
> wise afterthought on this matter.)
Ben Kaufman
Jul 1, 2012, 9:15:07 AM7/1/12
to
the burden is on the one who claims that reality is different based upon this
information.
Ben
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jul 2, 2012, 5:58:54 PM7/2/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
exist. Because, as defined, God is as illogical as a square circle, or
north of the North Pole."
-- Daniel San (February 18, 2012)
Painius
Jul 4, 2012, 10:48:05 AM7/4/12
to
reality? Before atheism "gained the ground" that it has today in
terms of number of atheists per theists, theism *was* the reality. So
it's atheists who claim that reality is different, not theists. To be
sure, theism is faith-based because theists cannot produce a single
cold, hard fact that supports their belief in a god or gods.
And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"What anyone says you cannot do, you try and find that you can."
Free Lunch
Jul 4, 2012, 10:57:34 AM7/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:48:05 -0400, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:15:07 -0400, Ben Kaufman
><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:59:41 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20120628102530....@fidemturbare.com>,
>>>god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>>>> Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
>>>> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A person with an absence of belief would not accept or even know of any
>>>label relative to the belief ('without god' is relative to god). An
>>>atheist has the burden to prove they do not believe just as a theists
>>>must prove they do. The logical burden is not on proving a god exists or
>>>not.
>>
>>The fact that I express any view about a subject indicates a position, however,
>>the burden is on the one who claims that reality is different based upon this
>>information.
>>
>>Ben
>
>Reality is different from what, exactly? Your reality? The atheist's
>reality? Before atheism "gained the ground" that it has today in
>terms of number of atheists per theists, theism *was* the reality.
No.
>So it's atheists who claim that reality is different, not theists. To be
>sure, theism is faith-based because theists cannot produce a single
>cold, hard fact that supports their belief in a god or gods.
>
>And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason.
Why is atheism faith-based because theists cannot produce a single cold,
hard fact that supports their beliefs in gods?
>There is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
>to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
>with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
>can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
As long as you refuse to accept valid logic and refuse to engage in
critical, rational thinking, you will keep making this false
equivalence.
in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:15:07 -0400, Ben Kaufman
><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:59:41 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20120628102530....@fidemturbare.com>,
>>>god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>>>> Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
>>>> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A person with an absence of belief would not accept or even know of any
>>>label relative to the belief ('without god' is relative to god). An
>>>atheist has the burden to prove they do not believe just as a theists
>>>must prove they do. The logical burden is not on proving a god exists or
>>>not.
>>
>>The fact that I express any view about a subject indicates a position, however,
>>the burden is on the one who claims that reality is different based upon this
>>information.
>>
>>Ben
>
>Reality is different from what, exactly? Your reality? The atheist's
>reality? Before atheism "gained the ground" that it has today in
>terms of number of atheists per theists, theism *was* the reality.
>So it's atheists who claim that reality is different, not theists. To be
>sure, theism is faith-based because theists cannot produce a single
>cold, hard fact that supports their belief in a god or gods.
>
>And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason.
hard fact that supports their beliefs in gods?
>There is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
>to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
>with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
>can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
critical, rational thinking, you will keep making this false
equivalence.
HVAC
Jul 4, 2012, 1:51:46 PM7/4/12
to
On 7/4/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
> is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
> to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
> with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
> can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
And anyone that asks if Painus feels the same way about a whole host of
>
> And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
> is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
> to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
> with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
> can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
other mythical characters, such a leprechauns, Santa Claus, Easter
Bunny, fairies, etc, is charged with creating a 'red herring'. Why?
Well, according to Painus, god is a 'non-trivial' deity. This gives away
the fact that Painus is a believer. He also believes in 'miracles'.
When I point this out to him, he gets very upset and calls me a criminal
Immortalist
Jul 4, 2012, 2:12:06 PM7/4/12
to
On Jun 29, 2:10 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
According to Quine's metaphor of the web, all of our beliefs justify
and are justified by all of our other beliefs. They are all connected
by an explanatory network, and changes in one place can require
changes elsewhere. Thus, all of our beliefs are connected to our
observations of the world. What we observe can lead us to change any
of our beliefs, no matter how certain we may have been that they were
true. ...we try to change as few beliefs as possible, but we cannot
rule out the possibility that some observations will require sweeping
changes in the web.
Such sweeping changes do not occur often. When they do occur, they are
usually heralded as scientific revolutions, such as when Albert
Einstein (1879-1955) replaced Isaac Newton's (1642-1727) world view
with his special and general theories of relativity, and when Charles
Darwin (1809-1882) presented his theory of evolution, and when Sigmund
Freud (1856-1939) revealed the powers of unconscious motivation.
Similar sweeping changes may also occur in our personal lives, as when
we embrace a new religion with great fervor or decide that atheism is
the correct attitude and reject all religion.
...Are any beliefs immune from this process? Many philosophers believe
so. They hold that some beliefs do not depend on observation for their
justification, and that no observations whatever could show them to be
wrong. Beliefs of this type are said to count as a priori knowledge,
meaning that their justification is independent of experience. A
priori knowledge is contrasted with empirical knowledge, which does
depend on observation for its justification.
Thus, these philosophers give certain beliefs a privileged place in
the web. They are protected by something like a one-way glass. The
beliefs behind the glass, our a priori knowledge, provide
justification for the beliefs in front of it, our empirical beliefs,
but nothing that happens in front of the glass can change what goes on
behind it...
...The web of belief is set up in such a way that it is always
possible to hold any belief, come what may...
...Think of our beliefs as being spread throughout our web. Some
beliefs are in the center, some on the edges, and the rest scattered
in between. The beliefs on the edges are those we are most willing to
give up in the face of unexpected observations. The ones in the center
are those we are least willing to give up, those we are most likely to
hold, come what may. For most of us, the belief that tables do not
move themselves is much closer to the center than the belief that we
have not misjudged the distance to the table. A great number of
unexpected observations would have to occur before we would begin to
believe that tables move themselves. As we get closer and closer to
the center, our beliefs seem to be totally protected from unexpected
observations, so protected that we cannot imagine changing them. The
belief that twice two is four, for example, seems entirely immune from
revision.
Although most of us put the same beliefs in the center, it is possible
to put anything there...
Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:32:01 -0700
>
> "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> > <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:32:01 -0700
>
> "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> >news:20120628102530....@fidemturbare.com...
> > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:43:45 -0700
> > > "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:43:45 -0700
> > > "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
According to Quine's metaphor of the web, all of our beliefs justify
and are justified by all of our other beliefs. They are all connected
by an explanatory network, and changes in one place can require
changes elsewhere. Thus, all of our beliefs are connected to our
observations of the world. What we observe can lead us to change any
of our beliefs, no matter how certain we may have been that they were
true. ...we try to change as few beliefs as possible, but we cannot
rule out the possibility that some observations will require sweeping
changes in the web.
Such sweeping changes do not occur often. When they do occur, they are
usually heralded as scientific revolutions, such as when Albert
Einstein (1879-1955) replaced Isaac Newton's (1642-1727) world view
with his special and general theories of relativity, and when Charles
Darwin (1809-1882) presented his theory of evolution, and when Sigmund
Freud (1856-1939) revealed the powers of unconscious motivation.
Similar sweeping changes may also occur in our personal lives, as when
we embrace a new religion with great fervor or decide that atheism is
the correct attitude and reject all religion.
...Are any beliefs immune from this process? Many philosophers believe
so. They hold that some beliefs do not depend on observation for their
justification, and that no observations whatever could show them to be
wrong. Beliefs of this type are said to count as a priori knowledge,
meaning that their justification is independent of experience. A
priori knowledge is contrasted with empirical knowledge, which does
depend on observation for its justification.
Thus, these philosophers give certain beliefs a privileged place in
the web. They are protected by something like a one-way glass. The
beliefs behind the glass, our a priori knowledge, provide
justification for the beliefs in front of it, our empirical beliefs,
but nothing that happens in front of the glass can change what goes on
behind it...
...The web of belief is set up in such a way that it is always
possible to hold any belief, come what may...
...Think of our beliefs as being spread throughout our web. Some
beliefs are in the center, some on the edges, and the rest scattered
in between. The beliefs on the edges are those we are most willing to
give up in the face of unexpected observations. The ones in the center
are those we are least willing to give up, those we are most likely to
hold, come what may. For most of us, the belief that tables do not
move themselves is much closer to the center than the belief that we
have not misjudged the distance to the table. A great number of
unexpected observations would have to occur before we would begin to
believe that tables move themselves. As we get closer and closer to
the center, our beliefs seem to be totally protected from unexpected
observations, so protected that we cannot imagine changing them. The
belief that twice two is four, for example, seems entirely immune from
revision.
Although most of us put the same beliefs in the center, it is possible
to put anything there...
Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/
Mike Lovell
Jul 4, 2012, 2:17:37 PM7/4/12
to
On 2012-07-04, Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It's a good thing I didn't label atheism (or Atheism) as a faith.
>>
>
> Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs" [...]
>> It's a good thing I didn't label atheism (or Atheism) as a faith.
>>
>
No it does not. It consists of a single *absence* of belief in God.
Not only is it not a "system" of beliefs (numerous), it's not even a
belief (singular).
Like as earlier in the thread...
Not smoking isn't a habit
+
Not playing chess isn't a game
Not stamp collecting isn't a hobby
Epic fail!
Immortalist
Jul 4, 2012, 2:41:44 PM7/4/12
to
On Jul 4, 11:17 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:
concept of absence of X would be considered a belief. Actually in
logic this one belief requires a system of implied beliefs.
For instance;
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that
the belief is likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least
one empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal
to other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from
within, by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each
other. Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if
veiwed in an linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever
"property" (or complex of properties) is requisite for the
justification of such a system of beliefs. Degrees of justification
emerge out of the relations of groups of beliefs.
> On 2012-07-04, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's a good thing I didn't label atheism (or Atheism) as a faith.
>
> > Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs" [...]
>
> No it does not. It consists of a single *absence* of belief in God.
>
> Not only is it not a "system" of beliefs (numerous), it's not even a
> belief (singular).
>
We must be defining belief in different ways then since in logic the
>
> >> It's a good thing I didn't label atheism (or Atheism) as a faith.
>
> > Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs" [...]
>
> No it does not. It consists of a single *absence* of belief in God.
>
> Not only is it not a "system" of beliefs (numerous), it's not even a
> belief (singular).
>
concept of absence of X would be considered a belief. Actually in
logic this one belief requires a system of implied beliefs.
For instance;
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that
the belief is likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least
one empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal
to other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from
within, by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each
other. Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if
veiwed in an linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever
"property" (or complex of properties) is requisite for the
justification of such a system of beliefs. Degrees of justification
emerge out of the relations of groups of beliefs.
Ben Kaufman
Jul 4, 2012, 3:25:41 PM7/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:48:05 -0400, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:15:07 -0400, Ben Kaufman
><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:59:41 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20120628102530....@fidemturbare.com>,
>>>god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>>>> Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
>>>> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A person with an absence of belief would not accept or even know of any
>>>label relative to the belief ('without god' is relative to god). An
>>>atheist has the burden to prove they do not believe just as a theists
>>>must prove they do. The logical burden is not on proving a god exists or
>>>not.
>>
>>The fact that I express any view about a subject indicates a position, however,
>>the burden is on the one who claims that reality is different based upon this
>>information.
>>
>>Ben
>
>Reality is different from what, exactly? Your reality? The atheist's
>reality? Before atheism "gained the ground" that it has today in
>terms of number of atheists per theists, theism *was* the reality. So
>it's atheists who claim that reality is different, not theists. To be
>sure, theism is faith-based because theists cannot produce a single
>cold, hard fact that supports their belief in a god or gods.
There is just one reality that we all live in. This doesn't mean we all "see"
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:15:07 -0400, Ben Kaufman
><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:59:41 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20120628102530....@fidemturbare.com>,
>>>god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>>>> Atheism, on the other hand, is entirely free
>>>> of this burden due to "absence of belief" simply not being a position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A person with an absence of belief would not accept or even know of any
>>>label relative to the belief ('without god' is relative to god). An
>>>atheist has the burden to prove they do not believe just as a theists
>>>must prove they do. The logical burden is not on proving a god exists or
>>>not.
>>
>>The fact that I express any view about a subject indicates a position, however,
>>the burden is on the one who claims that reality is different based upon this
>>information.
>>
>>Ben
>
>Reality is different from what, exactly? Your reality? The atheist's
>reality? Before atheism "gained the ground" that it has today in
>terms of number of atheists per theists, theism *was* the reality. So
>it's atheists who claim that reality is different, not theists. To be
>sure, theism is faith-based because theists cannot produce a single
>cold, hard fact that supports their belief in a god or gods.
reality correctly because we are subject to distortions based upon our current
understanding of things and societal influences. A theist might accept his
religion's belief that God created everything in its present form just 6000
years ago, but that's not a different reality, he's simply mistaken. When the
theist actively denies facts presented to him then he is not accepting reality.
>
>And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
>is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
>to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
>with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
>can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
Religious faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence, as
opposed to an expectation based upon past experiences or observations. Do you
see a little difference between someone having faith that gravity will still be
working in 5 days from now, as opposed to faith that God made man from clay? Of
course since we don't truly know the nature of the Universe perhaps gravity
could stop working in 5 days. We don't absolutely know for sure, but for all
intents and purposes we consider it absurd to treat it as a real possibility.
Ben
Painius
Jul 4, 2012, 6:01:12 PM7/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:51:46 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 7/4/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
>> is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
>> to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
>> with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
>> can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
>
>And anyone that asks if Painus feels the same way about a whole host of
>other mythical characters, such a leprechauns, Santa Claus, Easter
>Bunny, fairies, etc, is charged with creating a 'red herring'. Why?
>Well, according to Painus, god is a 'non-trivial' deity. This gives away
>the fact that Painus is a believer. He also believes in 'miracles'.
>
>When I point this out to him, he gets very upset and calls me a criminal
You are a liar and a clown - and oh yes, a criminal. You fool nobody,
>On 7/4/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
>> is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or
>> to reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
>> with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
>> can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
>
>And anyone that asks if Painus feels the same way about a whole host of
>other mythical characters, such a leprechauns, Santa Claus, Easter
>Bunny, fairies, etc, is charged with creating a 'red herring'. Why?
>Well, according to Painus, god is a 'non-trivial' deity. This gives away
>the fact that Painus is a believer. He also believes in 'miracles'.
>
>When I point this out to him, he gets very upset and calls me a criminal
anymore, Harlow. When you bleed to death, only I will care, because
it's going to cost a lot of time and money to bring you to justice.
Don't you dare croak on me, you wretched beast!
LMFAO
G=EMC^2
Jul 5, 2012, 7:52:44 AM7/5/12
to
On Jul 4, 3:25 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>godd...@fidemturbare.com says...
My equation G=EMC^2 fits with all of people's idea's on creation. G
for God or G for gravity. That is the reason its getting well
received. We must use this equation to unite humankind into respecting
each others beliefs. End up with love rather when hate. TreBert
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:48:05 -0400, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:15:07 -0400, Ben Kaufman
> ><spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:59:41 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>
> >>>In article <20120628102530.1612a4d2.godd...@fidemturbare.com>,
> >On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:15:07 -0400, Ben Kaufman
> ><spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:59:41 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>
> >>>godd...@fidemturbare.com says...
for God or G for gravity. That is the reason its getting well
received. We must use this equation to unite humankind into respecting
each others beliefs. End up with love rather when hate. TreBert
Smiler
Jul 5, 2012, 5:57:16 PM7/5/12
to
You'll now claim "VICTOLLY!" and, hopefully, run away.
Ben Kaufman
Jul 6, 2012, 6:29:56 AM7/6/12
to
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 04:52:44 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com>
wrote:
How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their clitoris
hacked off, for example?
Ben
wrote:
hacked off, for example?
Ben
HVAC
Jul 6, 2012, 9:09:01 AM7/6/12
to
On 7/6/2012 6:29 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>
>> My equation G=EMC^2 fits with all of people's idea's on creation. G
>> for God or G for gravity. That is the reason its getting well
>> received. We must use this equation to unite humankind into respecting
>> each others beliefs. End up with love rather when hate. TreBert
>
> How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their clitoris
> hacked off, for example?
That would be (using Bert's equation) G=EMC^2. Where the 'C' stands for
>
>> My equation G=EMC^2 fits with all of people's idea's on creation. G
>> for God or G for gravity. That is the reason its getting well
>> received. We must use this equation to unite humankind into respecting
>> each others beliefs. End up with love rather when hate. TreBert
>
> How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their clitoris
> hacked off, for example?
Clitoris.
Les
Jul 6, 2012, 11:47:53 AM7/6/12
to
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:12:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
How many times do we have to repeat this?
The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
>
>According to Quine's metaphor of the web, all of our beliefs justify
>and are justified by all of our other beliefs. They are all connected
>by an explanatory network, and changes in one place can require
>changes elsewhere. Thus, all of our beliefs are connected
I am sure I have many beliefs all interconnected into a system
as the author observes but none of them are religious in nature
since I am not theist.
I am also sure that each and every atheist has his own non-religious
'belief system' which is unique to that indvidual so there is no such
thing as a common atheist (atheism) 'belief system' let alone one
that involves relgious belief.
Somebody, and it does not take long to guess who, is still
trying to flog something that just does not exist. There is no
such thing as a 'atheist belief system'
This in one dead horse, lain on its dried out bed of straw, that he
is trying to flog as something sinister and the poor thing is down to
just its bones whilst the chaff is raised around it. It will soon blow
away.
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Doug Freyburger
Jul 6, 2012, 12:08:05 PM7/6/12
to
Les wrote:
> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>
> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>
> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>
> How many times do we have to repeat this?
Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>
> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>
> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>
> How many times do we have to repeat this?
in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of athiests
in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
the range of meanings. The agnostics are the ones who don't participate
or occasionally the ones who suggest de-escalation.
Christopher A. Lee
Jul 6, 2012, 12:24:22 PM7/6/12
to
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:08:05 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Les wrote:
>> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
As long as deliberately pig-ignorant, psychopathically nasty
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Les wrote:
>> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
narcissists like this one keep inventing positions we don't have, to
attack.
In what passes for their minds we're all wrong about what is in our
own minds and they arrogantly imagine they get to tell us what we
"really" think.
>Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
that what he lies about us to us, is simply the reaction to behaviour
like his.
>in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
>every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of athiests
>in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
What makes you such an in-your-face nasty, pathologically lying
narcissist?
>> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
>
>Sure. Conflating with agnostics. One of many choices in how to define
>the range of meanings. The agnostics are the ones who don't participate
>or occasionally the ones who suggest de-escalation.
You know perfectly well that agnosticism is concerned with knowledge
about something that is irrelevant to most atheists because it's
merely somebody else's religious belief we don't happen to share.
And that atheism means not being theist.
What's wrong with you?
Mike Lovell
Jul 6, 2012, 12:52:23 PM7/6/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-07-06, Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
>
> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
> every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of athiests
> in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
Here you're making the classic mistake of thinking someone is saying a
person who is an atheist, has no beliefs (in other things).
Seeing as atheism is merely "I don't believe in God" that's not a
belief, not a system of beliefs.
A atheist may have beliefs in various philosophies or moral systems but
that doesn't form part of atheism which is one thing and one thing only.
The *absence* of belief.
What you're seeing quite often in this newsgroup is more a *reaction*
to theist trolling the group, when they shouldn't be doing so.
If you come into someone else's house and shit on their carpet,
don't expect a warm welcome.
>> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
>
> Sure. Conflating with agnostics. One of many choices in how to define
> the range of meanings. The agnostics are the ones who don't participate
> or occasionally the ones who suggest de-escalation.
Perhaps you don't know what agnosticism means. Nobody is *just* an
agnostic. You must be either a theist or atheist. You either believe
in God or you do not.
Agnosticism is about if you know for certain that God exists (the
agnostic stance is that they *do not* _KNOW_).
The only stances available:
Atheist
Theist
Agnostic-Atheist
Agnostic-Theist
If someone says they are just an agnostic they are either lying to
"appear" neutral, or they don't understand the terms.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iJwEAQECAAYFAk/3F7sACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7dyQQAnlRoO2f+Dkf8gFrLsW5Nkr4U
+gZiAxVsAcoDylicHfcybdw+Z1zvoQaLLqRS9FAAhVHVEMAIjqeuTWokt4xl/T3m
if8UUg4vAJ0a/UUZCHvquhSuwBEGrbm33QI1dgsyHcdKfSmrJSpAJlrHPdSKcUne
QQsHlMT3Kkp94LhBsQM=
=m9y7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-07-06, Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
>
> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
> every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of athiests
> in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
person who is an atheist, has no beliefs (in other things).
Seeing as atheism is merely "I don't believe in God" that's not a
belief, not a system of beliefs.
A atheist may have beliefs in various philosophies or moral systems but
that doesn't form part of atheism which is one thing and one thing only.
The *absence* of belief.
What you're seeing quite often in this newsgroup is more a *reaction*
to theist trolling the group, when they shouldn't be doing so.
If you come into someone else's house and shit on their carpet,
don't expect a warm welcome.
>> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
>
> Sure. Conflating with agnostics. One of many choices in how to define
> the range of meanings. The agnostics are the ones who don't participate
> or occasionally the ones who suggest de-escalation.
agnostic. You must be either a theist or atheist. You either believe
in God or you do not.
Agnosticism is about if you know for certain that God exists (the
agnostic stance is that they *do not* _KNOW_).
The only stances available:
Atheist
Theist
Agnostic-Atheist
Agnostic-Theist
If someone says they are just an agnostic they are either lying to
"appear" neutral, or they don't understand the terms.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iJwEAQECAAYFAk/3F7sACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7dyQQAnlRoO2f+Dkf8gFrLsW5Nkr4U
+gZiAxVsAcoDylicHfcybdw+Z1zvoQaLLqRS9FAAhVHVEMAIjqeuTWokt4xl/T3m
if8UUg4vAJ0a/UUZCHvquhSuwBEGrbm33QI1dgsyHcdKfSmrJSpAJlrHPdSKcUne
QQsHlMT3Kkp94LhBsQM=
=m9y7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Les
Jul 6, 2012, 1:20:02 PM7/6/12
to
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 11:17 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-04, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's a good thing I didn't label atheism (or Atheism) as a faith.
>>
>> > Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs" [...]
>>
>> No it does not. It consists of a single *absence* of belief in God.
>>
>> Not only is it not a "system" of beliefs (numerous), it's not even a
>> belief (singular).
>>
>
>We must be defining belief in different ways then since in logic the
>concept of absence of X would be considered a belief. Actually in
>logic this one belief requires a system of implied beliefs.
Reason and sense tells me that a a claim, any claim, that is not
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 11:17 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-04, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's a good thing I didn't label atheism (or Atheism) as a faith.
>>
>> > Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs" [...]
>>
>> No it does not. It consists of a single *absence* of belief in God.
>>
>> Not only is it not a "system" of beliefs (numerous), it's not even a
>> belief (singular).
>>
>
>We must be defining belief in different ways then since in logic the
>concept of absence of X would be considered a belief. Actually in
>logic this one belief requires a system of implied beliefs.
supported with any evidence of any kind should be rejected and
thought nothing more about
A theist is a person who claims there is what he calls god, I
am not a theists and make no such religious claims.
The theists never try to support their claim with evidence to show
what the word 'god' meas or whether one of them actually
exists and simply expect to accept their claim just on their
say so. Just believer they say, just believe what I reply? So I treat
it any other unsupported claim and reject it and try to forget it.
Note I am not rejecting a god (I do not even know what one of
them is supposed to be) but a claim there is one.
There is nothing to believe or not belief since an unsuported
clam is wortheless offering nothing to believe or to to believe
have not bothered to read) that you have proved that the reaction
to an unjustifed claim involves a quite logical and natural
belief system.
The question is then so what? What was this all about?
Well, for one you have shown that this belief system
that you claim is not illogical so no argument there (again I stress
Ithat iIhave not actually accepted this but just assume it for
arguments sake)
What have you have not shown is that there is anything sinister
about it
You have not shown that any of theise beliefs are the slightest
relgious in nature. This was not a relgious system of
beliefs you were talking about but a belief system involved with
the rejection of claims (should there be such a system)
So what was all this research about? You are trying
to make some kind of point to which you would lkie to bash us with.
A point that is not of the slightest interest to me since all that
concerns me is that I have done nothing more than rejecting
an empty claim which is a prefectly reasonable thing to do
which makes me no theist or atheist.
I remain perectly justified in that postion and see absolutely
no reason to change.
>
>> Like as earlier in the thread...
>>
>> Not smoking isn't a habit
>>
>> +
>>
>> Not playing chess isn't a game
>> Not stamp collecting isn't a hobby
>>
>> Epic fail!
first place as it seems somewhat esoteric and pointless.
I guess the real reason for this posts will soon become
clear and we know who Mr. Anonymous is.
Les
Jul 6, 2012, 5:35:54 PM7/6/12
to
Smiler
Jul 6, 2012, 6:56:51 PM7/6/12
to
They can believe whatever crazy things they like, just as long as they
don't put them into practice.
Odysseus
Jul 6, 2012, 9:43:10 PM7/6/12
to
In article <pan.2012.07.06....@JoeKing.com>,
> > How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their
> > clitoris hacked off, for example?
> >
>
> One can respect the belief _and_ deplore the practice of it.
> They can believe whatever crazy things they like, just as long as they
> don't put them into practice.
At any rate that particular custom is not religious _per se_, albeit
widely condoned by religious authorities in communities that practise it.
--
Odysseus
Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:29:56 -0400, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>
<snip>
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:29:56 -0400, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>
> > How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their
> > clitoris hacked off, for example?
> >
>
> One can respect the belief _and_ deplore the practice of it.
> They can believe whatever crazy things they like, just as long as they
> don't put them into practice.
widely condoned by religious authorities in communities that practise it.
--
Odysseus
walksalone
Jul 7, 2012, 11:58:58 AM7/7/12
to
Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jt72h5$qlu$1@dont-
email.me:
> Les wrote:
>> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
>
> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
What is to justify? I don't believe in any of the over 20000 gods
claimed by humanity, including any decent ones. Of course, that leaves
the revealed gods of the desert out. On ethical/moral grounds in
addition to lacka.
Lacka need
lacka evidence
lacka just about any claim god botherers present.
Now if you have evidence, not logical tail chasers, why I might have to
change my mind & get the downgrade to theist. I doubt you can.
> every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of
athiests
> in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
How so? What you see as dogma, [assumption alert]may be your biased POV.
The reality, atheism no matter the reason, is simply a lack of belief.
In particualr, deity claims. Other than that, atheists may or may not
agree on a variety of subjects.
>> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
> Sure. Conflating with agnostics. One of many choices in how to define
Wrong answer buttercup. An agnostic, by the very tgerm, accepts a deity.
What it is, is no more than a lack of knowledge of that deity. Bit like
being agnostic about the IPU, or the current fave, the FSM. But od
course, theists use their own special definitions so it is not so
embarrassing to them.
> the range of meanings. The agnostics are the ones who don't
participate
> or occasionally the ones who suggest de-escalation.
To each their own. Personally when any one meanders through from the
philosophy group, I've no problem with rubbing their nose in the fresh
steaming pile they like to leave on the carpet.
Dogmatic, not really. Sadistic, some say.
They may be right, I refer to it as a temporary relief from our
unprofessional drolls. Not trolls, drolls. Dullards to the individual.
An empty beer bottle shows not only more class, but more awareness on
just about any subject you care to invoke. Not to mention, it has served
a useful purpose.
walksalone who was under the false impression that the philosophy group
was still discussing the immemorable question, Why Is There Air?. A
question any Physed student can answer, to blow up basketballs &
footballs. [Bill Cosby IIRC]
A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
"Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
two.
"That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
for it was a man who made the statue."
We can easily represent things as we wish them to be.
email.me:
> Les wrote:
>> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
>
> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
claimed by humanity, including any decent ones. Of course, that leaves
the revealed gods of the desert out. On ethical/moral grounds in
addition to lacka.
Lacka need
lacka evidence
lacka just about any claim god botherers present.
Now if you have evidence, not logical tail chasers, why I might have to
change my mind & get the downgrade to theist. I doubt you can.
> every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of
athiests
> in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
The reality, atheism no matter the reason, is simply a lack of belief.
In particualr, deity claims. Other than that, atheists may or may not
agree on a variety of subjects.
>> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
> Sure. Conflating with agnostics. One of many choices in how to define
What it is, is no more than a lack of knowledge of that deity. Bit like
being agnostic about the IPU, or the current fave, the FSM. But od
course, theists use their own special definitions so it is not so
embarrassing to them.
> the range of meanings. The agnostics are the ones who don't
participate
> or occasionally the ones who suggest de-escalation.
philosophy group, I've no problem with rubbing their nose in the fresh
steaming pile they like to leave on the carpet.
Dogmatic, not really. Sadistic, some say.
They may be right, I refer to it as a temporary relief from our
unprofessional drolls. Not trolls, drolls. Dullards to the individual.
An empty beer bottle shows not only more class, but more awareness on
just about any subject you care to invoke. Not to mention, it has served
a useful purpose.
walksalone who was under the false impression that the philosophy group
was still discussing the immemorable question, Why Is There Air?. A
question any Physed student can answer, to blow up basketballs &
footballs. [Bill Cosby IIRC]
A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
"Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
two.
"That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
for it was a man who made the statue."
We can easily represent things as we wish them to be.
Doug Freyburger
Jul 7, 2012, 8:53:24 PM7/7/12
to
walksalone wrote:
>
> A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
> and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
> were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
> "Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
> right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
> statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
> two.
> "That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
> for it was a man who made the statue."
And then the rest of the man's hunting party arrived. Both men and
>
> A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
> and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
> were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
> "Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
> right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
> statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
> two.
> "That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
> for it was a man who made the statue."
lions hunt in packs but the lion was temporarily separated from his.
The human hunting party all had sharp sticks or even more powerful
tools. The lion died in amzement that a creature with weak teeth would
deliberately hunt the top predator. Make that second from the top. The
lion died never realizing that last bit.
walksalone
Jul 8, 2012, 5:21:02 AM7/8/12
to
Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jtalm4$753$1@dont-
email.me:
So, rather than comment on Aesop's version, which had the man & lion
ammicably walking & talking together, in fact going to town together, you
have the lion killed. May I assume you fiollow the teachings of one of the
revealed gods of the desert?
BTW, just in case you are new to uusenet, there is nothing wrong with
removing text you don't want to talk about, but there is something
typically xian in failing to mark such a removal.
Allow me to demonstrate.
Original message re-insertion follows.
You will notice, my comments are not marked as previously sent text.
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so is not a movement, or an 'ism'
responded to it. Yes, you did make an assedrtion, but as one grounded in,
or wanting to be grounded in, philosophy, certainly you would eschew such a
logical fallacy. The result, the nagging suspicion that you know you don't
really have an answer.
> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
Here I could have removed text, after all, you are attempting to enforce
your myopic views on others by pretending you have the right to set the
standards they are required to use just so you can view them with some
favor.
It would have looked like this.
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> does for 'atheist' so is not a movement, or an 'ism'
>> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
Where Les's portion was continued, indicating there is text missing from
the current conversation. This allows less bndwidth & informs the reader
they may have to backup one in the message que to see what was missing.
Assuming of course, in this case, they care.
Had I dones so, you would have seen the following.
What is to justify? I don't believe in any of the over 20000 gods
claimed by humanity, including any decent ones. Of course, that leaves
the revealed gods of the desert out. On ethical/moral grounds in
addition to lacka.
Lacka need
lacka evidence
lacka just about any claim god botherers present.
***********
Comments that you will fail to respond to in any meaningful manner. which
is par for the course.
**********
What this indiates is that you have no answers that work for others, & you
know it. Resulting in you trying to divert the conversation into something
as trivial as your responses.
*************************
BTW, the astericks are a means of alerting other readers, possiobly
including you, to a text other than the original being inserted.
walksalone who is rather glad that his journey does allow him to meet those
with differeing opinions. After all, when they are wrong, it's free ego
strokes. & when they are rioght, I get to learn something. I suspect not
many would enjoy that POV. At least, not many on usenet.
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief
is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated
need to believe.
�Carl Sagan
email.me:
ammicably walking & talking together, in fact going to town together, you
have the lion killed. May I assume you fiollow the teachings of one of the
revealed gods of the desert?
BTW, just in case you are new to uusenet, there is nothing wrong with
removing text you don't want to talk about, but there is something
typically xian in failing to mark such a removal.
Allow me to demonstrate.
Original message re-insertion follows.
You will notice, my comments are not marked as previously sent text.
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
Here would be a good location for text removal, for you have not really
>>
>> How many times do we have to repeat this?
responded to it. Yes, you did make an assedrtion, but as one grounded in,
or wanting to be grounded in, philosophy, certainly you would eschew such a
logical fallacy. The result, the nagging suspicion that you know you don't
really have an answer.
> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
your myopic views on others by pretending you have the right to set the
standards they are required to use just so you can view them with some
favor.
It would have looked like this.
>>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
>>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>>
>> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>>
>> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
>> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
Snip
>> The word 'atheist' (or 'atheism') means somebody who is not theist.
the current conversation. This allows less bndwidth & informs the reader
they may have to backup one in the message que to see what was missing.
Assuming of course, in this case, they care.
Had I dones so, you would have seen the following.
What is to justify? I don't believe in any of the over 20000 gods
claimed by humanity, including any decent ones. Of course, that leaves
the revealed gods of the desert out. On ethical/moral grounds in
addition to lacka.
Lacka need
lacka evidence
lacka just about any claim god botherers present.
Comments that you will fail to respond to in any meaningful manner. which
is par for the course.
**********
A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
"Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
two.
"That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
for it was a man who made the statue."
and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
"Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
two.
"That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
for it was a man who made the statue."
We can easily represent things as we wish them to be.
***********************
What this indiates is that you have no answers that work for others, & you
know it. Resulting in you trying to divert the conversation into something
as trivial as your responses.
*************************
BTW, the astericks are a means of alerting other readers, possiobly
including you, to a text other than the original being inserted.
walksalone who is rather glad that his journey does allow him to meet those
with differeing opinions. After all, when they are wrong, it's free ego
strokes. & when they are rioght, I get to learn something. I suspect not
many would enjoy that POV. At least, not many on usenet.
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief
is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated
need to believe.
�Carl Sagan
Doug Freyburger
Jul 8, 2012, 10:54:59 AM7/8/12
to
walksalone wrote:
prehistory that is recent in evolutionary terms long ago in historical
terms. Though humans deliberately killing lions as a rite of passage to
adulthood happened in some hunting tribes only a century ago and similar
mght still happen in some tribal societies who live far away from
industrial society.
> May I assume you fiollow the teachings of one of the
> revealed gods of the desert?
No. No requirements exist in my religion to accept or decline the
existance of deity and we're not associated with the monotheists.
The stories depict deities as living beings but there's no requirement
to take them as other than fictional. Thor did not actually go fishing.
We don't have the error of biblical inerrancy and thus have no
conflict with science. In this we fit the pattern of most religions in
the world rather than the pattern of the two largest population
religions. We're also not universalist in claiming that everyone should
be a member. In this we fit the pattern of most religions in the world
rather than the pattern of three of the top four by population.
> BTW, just in case you are new to uusenet, there is nothing wrong with
> removing text you don't want to talk about
According to the original RFCs it's required to trim posts. Not the
there has been any possibility of enforcing the RFCs since non
government and non university connections started happening in the time
of the eternal September. Possible enforcement or not I'm one of the
dinosaurs from the days you could lose your job or flunk out of
college for getting too out of line on Usenet so I still follow most
of the traditions.
> but there is something
> typically xian in failing to mark such a removal.
Arrogance does not imply correctness. Nor does ignorance of the RFCs
imply correctness. I trimmed out the parts I did not respond to because
you had already demonstrated the behavior I suggested in at least one
previous post. You just repeated the behavior here. Dogmatic
approaches are a sufficient qualifier for religion. Not the only
qualifer but a sufficient one nonetheless.
>> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
>> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
>
> Here I could have removed text, after all, you are attempting to enforce
> your myopic views on others by pretending you have the right to set the
> standards they are required to use just so you can view them with some
> favor.
My point based on observation stands and is reenforced by your post.
You in particular chose to extend the battle between the monotheists and
the atheists to folks outside of that set.
On the one hand - You give strength to that which you battle. On the
other hand - Silence affirms assent.
In the case of the assertions of the monotheists that contradiction sets
up a problematic dynamic. You give so much strength to the monotheists
you find yourself calling people monotheists who aren't and jumping to
conclusions. It's a very effective PR campaign on the part of the
monotheists to define the discource in their own terms to the point
they have others playing their game.
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> walksalone wrote:
>
>>> A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
>>> and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
>>> were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
>>> "Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
>>> right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
>>> statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
>>> two.
>>> "That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
>>> for it was a man who made the statue."
>
>> And then the rest of the man's hunting party arrived. Both men and
>> lions hunt in packs but the lion was temporarily separated from his.
>> The human hunting party all had sharp sticks or even more powerful
>> tools. The lion died in amzement that a creature with weak teeth would
>> deliberately hunt the top predator. Make that second from the top. The
>> lion died never realizing that last bit.
>
> So, rather than comment on Aesop's version, which had the man & lion
> ammicably walking & talking together, in fact going to town together, you
> have the lion killed.
I recognized the story. My version is a take based on a phase of human
>> walksalone wrote:
>
>>> A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
>>> and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
>>> were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
>>> "Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
>>> right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
>>> statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
>>> two.
>>> "That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
>>> for it was a man who made the statue."
>
>> And then the rest of the man's hunting party arrived. Both men and
>> lions hunt in packs but the lion was temporarily separated from his.
>> The human hunting party all had sharp sticks or even more powerful
>> tools. The lion died in amzement that a creature with weak teeth would
>> deliberately hunt the top predator. Make that second from the top. The
>> lion died never realizing that last bit.
>
> So, rather than comment on Aesop's version, which had the man & lion
> ammicably walking & talking together, in fact going to town together, you
> have the lion killed.
prehistory that is recent in evolutionary terms long ago in historical
terms. Though humans deliberately killing lions as a rite of passage to
adulthood happened in some hunting tribes only a century ago and similar
mght still happen in some tribal societies who live far away from
industrial society.
> May I assume you fiollow the teachings of one of the
> revealed gods of the desert?
existance of deity and we're not associated with the monotheists.
The stories depict deities as living beings but there's no requirement
to take them as other than fictional. Thor did not actually go fishing.
We don't have the error of biblical inerrancy and thus have no
conflict with science. In this we fit the pattern of most religions in
the world rather than the pattern of the two largest population
religions. We're also not universalist in claiming that everyone should
be a member. In this we fit the pattern of most religions in the world
rather than the pattern of three of the top four by population.
> BTW, just in case you are new to uusenet, there is nothing wrong with
> removing text you don't want to talk about
there has been any possibility of enforcing the RFCs since non
government and non university connections started happening in the time
of the eternal September. Possible enforcement or not I'm one of the
dinosaurs from the days you could lose your job or flunk out of
college for getting too out of line on Usenet so I still follow most
of the traditions.
> but there is something
> typically xian in failing to mark such a removal.
imply correctness. I trimmed out the parts I did not respond to because
you had already demonstrated the behavior I suggested in at least one
previous post. You just repeated the behavior here. Dogmatic
approaches are a sufficient qualifier for religion. Not the only
qualifer but a sufficient one nonetheless.
>> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
>> in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
>
> Here I could have removed text, after all, you are attempting to enforce
> your myopic views on others by pretending you have the right to set the
> standards they are required to use just so you can view them with some
> favor.
You in particular chose to extend the battle between the monotheists and
the atheists to folks outside of that set.
On the one hand - You give strength to that which you battle. On the
other hand - Silence affirms assent.
In the case of the assertions of the monotheists that contradiction sets
up a problematic dynamic. You give so much strength to the monotheists
you find yourself calling people monotheists who aren't and jumping to
conclusions. It's a very effective PR campaign on the part of the
monotheists to define the discource in their own terms to the point
they have others playing their game.
Christopher A. Lee
Jul 8, 2012, 11:07:42 AM7/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 14:54:59 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My point based on observation stands and is reenforced by your post.
>You in particular chose to extend the battle between the monotheists and
>the atheists to folks outside of that set.
Any lie on your part rather that admit what has long since ceased to
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My point based on observation stands and is reenforced by your post.
>You in particular chose to extend the battle between the monotheists and
>the atheists to folks outside of that set.
be an honest mistake.
>On the one hand - You give strength to that which you battle. On the
>other hand - Silence affirms assent.
>In the case of the assertions of the monotheists that contradiction sets
>up a problematic dynamic. You give so much strength to the monotheists
>you find yourself calling people monotheists who aren't and jumping to
>conclusions. It's a very effective PR campaign on the part of the
>monotheists to define the discource in their own terms to the point
>they have others playing their game.
walksalone
Jul 9, 2012, 7:05:55 AM7/9/12
to
Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:jtc702$qqo$1...@dont-email.me:
snip
>> So, rather than comment on Aesop's version, which had the man & lion
>> ammicably walking & talking together, in fact going to town together,
>> you have the lion killed.
>
> I recognized the story. My version is a take based on a phase of
> human prehistory that is recent in evolutionary terms long ago in
> historical terms. Though humans deliberately killing lions as a rite
too had their rites of passage. It seems to be, if not universal, almost
universal.
> of passage to adulthood happened in some hunting tribes only a century
> ago and similar mght still happen in some tribal societies who live
> far away from industrial society.
>
>> May I assume you fiollow the teachings of one of the
>> revealed gods of the desert?
>
> No. No requirements exist in my religion to accept or decline the
> existance of deity and we're not associated with the monotheists.
dogmatic behaviour?
> The stories depict deities as living beings but there's no requirement
> to take them as other than fictional. Thor did not actually go
> fishing. We don't have the error of biblical inerrancy and thus have
> no conflict with science. In this we fit the pattern of most
> religions in the world rather than the pattern of the two largest
> population religions. We're also not universalist in claiming that
> everyone should be a member. In this we fit the pattern of most
> religions in the world rather than the pattern of three of the top
> four by population.
>
>> BTW, just in case you are new to uusenet, there is nothing wrong with
>> removing text you don't want to talk about
>
> According to the original RFCs it's required to trim posts. Not the
> there has been any possibility of enforcing the RFCs since non
> government and non university connections started happening in the
> time of the eternal September. Possible enforcement or not I'm one of
exclusive property of government, or academics.
> the dinosaurs from the days you could lose your job or flunk out of
> college for getting too out of line on Usenet so I still follow most
> of the traditions.
>
>> but there is something
>> typically xian in failing to mark such a removal.
>
> Arrogance does not imply correctness. Nor does ignorance of the RFCs
> imply correctness. I trimmed out the parts I did not respond to
> because you had already demonstrated the behavior I suggested in at
> least one previous post. You just repeated the behavior here.
atheist who cares not what others believe? Because I do not accept others
definitions of what I am, or should be? I fear I will always be a
disappointment to you. You see, I can believe anything, as long as there
is evidence. No evidednce, not so much. BTW, Isaac Asminov has a quote
similar to that. IIRC, his was in print first.
But back to your erronious opinion [from mu pov], just how am I being
dogmatic? What, in your opinion, makes my position dogmatic, & not yours?
Again, in your opinion.
> Dogmatic approaches are a sufficient qualifier for religion. Not the
> only qualifer but a sufficient one nonetheless.
even up for discussion.
I am the proud father of the worlds four most beautiful women. End of
discussion where that is conerned.
So yes, I can get dogmatic. Want to hear my views on Afganastan & Iraq?
Can't recomend it, even if they parralell yours.
Want my POV on the gods [how do you define that anyway?] Here is how I
defivne a god. & mind you, they all have one thing in common, well other
than lacka.
What is a god, a short & incomplete list.
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these
types of gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less
powerful than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the
European ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
Hat, are not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the
world, they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
understand the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of
humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are
entitled to go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies
If you can help expand that list, grateful I would be.
>>> Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and
>>> you in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of
>>> athiests in
>>
>> Here I could have removed text, after all, you are attempting to
>> enforce your myopic views on others by pretending you have the right
>> to set the standards they are required to use just so you can view
>> them with some favor.
>
> My point based on observation stands and is reenforced by your post.
others what they need to do. If they are not inclined to hear it, you are
not automatically granted permission to ask them if they will follow your
advice. BTW, the same applies to everyone else on usenet.
> You in particular chose to extend the battle between the monotheists
> and the atheists to folks outside of that set.
stated you are not one. Fine by me. The question will now become, will
your further actions in this group support your statement?
> On the one hand - You give strength to that which you battle. On the
> other hand - Silence affirms assent.
question, by & large I give no answers. I try to keep my ignorance to
myself, but mythology is one field of study that I am not totaly ignorant
on. Now, nuclear physics, ignorant.
Does your silence on the death of a penguin taken by a Orca in Australia
mean you give consent. & the only things I am aware that you can
strengthen by battle is fear & devoted ignorance.
You need to work on that.
Also consider, the usenet lurkers. Never met one that I know of, but have
seen them fade in & fade out.
So I reckon my lack of total silence to be a good thing™.
> In the case of the assertions of the monotheists that contradiction
> sets up a problematic dynamic. You give so much strength to the
> monotheists you find yourself calling people monotheists who aren't
> and jumping to conclusions. It's a very effective PR campaign on the
otherwise, it is an appropriate conclusion. At least you have declared
otherwise, but still imply you are theistic. If I may, can you identify
which god/dess you favor. Or for the information of others, if you accept
an organised theology, which one?
A short list of candidates follows.
Abgaledit Aglibol Allat Almaqah Amn Anbay A'ra Arsu Asar Asira Atarsamain
Azizos Baltis
Basamum Datin Haubas Haukim Hilal Hubal Kahilan Malakbel Manat Mandah
Marnas Nahi
Orotalt Qaynan Qos Quzah Ruda Salm of Mahram Sams Singla Ta'lab Theandros
Anat
Anat Arsay Aserah Aserah Astarte Athirat Attar Baal Malage Baal Samin
Baal
Sapon Baal Bethel Dagan Dagan Derceto Èl-eb Elkunirsa Esmun Hadad
Haurun Il
Kades Melqart Mikal Mot Mot Myrrrha Pidray Pidray Pothos Resep(A)mukal
Resep(A)mukal
Sapas Tanit Tanit Adam Beliyya'al' Abalim Abba Amona Abba Adonaiel
Akatriel-Yah
Alukah Anafiel Archon Asherah Asmodeus Baal-Karmelos Bat Kol Belial Bethel
Chashmal
Chayyot Ben Elohim El Dumiel Elohim Elom Ibbur Elim Lotan Mazikeen Memra
Nibhaz
Piznai Rahav Shabbat Hamalka Arom Bagisht Dagan Disani Dogumrik Duzhi Gish
Gujo
Immat Imra Indr Kshumai Lumang Maramalik Mon Munjem Malik Munjem Malik
Nirmali Nong
Panao Paneu Poluknalai Prakde Sanju Shomde Sudrem Zhiwud Agas Ahriman Ahura
Mazda
Ahurani(Ardi Sura Ahurani) Airyaman Allatum(Ellat)Ameretat Anahita Anaitis
Angra Mainyu
Apam Napat Asmodaios(Asmodeus)Asuras Azi Dahaka
(Azhdahak,Azdahak,AzhiDahaka)
Baga Bahram Burijas(Buriyas) Cautes and Cautopates Daena Daevas Dahhak Dena
Devas Diwe
Fravashis Fravasi Gandarewa Gayomart Geus Tasan Geus Urvan Hvar Indar Izha
Jamshid Mah Manu
Mao Mithra Neriosang Peris Rapithwin Rashnu(Rasnu) Senmurw SpentaArmaiti
Spenta Mainyu(Spenak Meno)
Sraosha(Sraosa,Sros) Thunaupa Tishtriya(Tistrya)Vata(Vayu)Vata Verethragna
(Bairam) Verethragna
Yazata Yima Zam Zurvan(Zervan,Zrvan)Attis Kybele Men Papas Priapos Sabzios
Sangarios[Phyrgian]
I accept your deity construct may be absent from the above list, after all,
they are mideastern gods & not all are well known.
> part of the monotheists to define the discource in their own terms to
> the point they have others playing their game.
many of the group once were devouts. Then it appears they grew up.
BTW, thank you for keeping the header list short, I prefer to not cross
post at all, but you are assoiated with the philosophy group.
walksalone who suspects if he is not careful, he may enjoy this
conversation. Quien sabe? Is it not written, que sara sara?
"Give wisdom and understanding to my leaders. Protect my warriors and
bring them back safe. Give to the young, love and contentment. Give health
and long life to my old people so that they may remain with us for a long
time. Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be
ashamed. And give me wisdom so that I may have kindness for all. And let me
live each day, so when day is done, my prayer will not have been in vain."
Big Lodge Pole, Blackfeet
Painius
Jul 14, 2012, 7:38:21 AM7/14/12
to
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:57:16 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
because you are a blind sheep without a leg to stand on.
Harlow can't win because, well, Harlow *never* wins. He just calls
everybody names, tells a few lies, reminds people that he's a
scientist, and then proves with his words that he's not.
And me? I can't win because... I DON'T PLAY!!!
LMFAO BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Anywhere you go, go with *all* your heart. Else why go at all?"
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:01:12 -0400, Painius wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:51:46 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/4/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
>>>> is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or to
>>>> reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
>>>> with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
>>>> can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
>>>
>>>And anyone that asks if Painus feels the same way about a whole host of
>>>other mythical characters, such a leprechauns, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny,
>>>fairies, etc, is charged with creating a 'red herring'. Why? Well,
>>>according to Painus, god is a 'non-trivial' deity. This gives away the
>>>fact that Painus is a believer. He also believes in 'miracles'.
>>>
>>>When I point this out to him, he gets very upset and calls me a criminal
>>
>> You are a liar and a clown - and oh yes, a criminal. You fool nobody,
>> anymore, Harlow. When you bleed to death, only I will care, because it's
>> going to cost a lot of time and money to bring you to justice. Don't you
>> dare croak on me, you wretched beast!
>>
>
>You're uttering the death throes of the defeated.
>You'll now claim "VICTOLLY!" and, hopefully, run away.
There cannot be a true victor in this discussion. You cannot win
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:01:12 -0400, Painius wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:51:46 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/4/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And so is atheism. Atheism is faith-based for the same reason. There
>>>> is no logical, factual reason to either believe or to lack belief or to
>>>> reject belief in a god or gods. It doesn't matter if one disagrees
>>>> with this, because the main point is that neither theists nor atheists
>>>> can logically justify their position. Not a single one.
>>>
>>>And anyone that asks if Painus feels the same way about a whole host of
>>>other mythical characters, such a leprechauns, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny,
>>>fairies, etc, is charged with creating a 'red herring'. Why? Well,
>>>according to Painus, god is a 'non-trivial' deity. This gives away the
>>>fact that Painus is a believer. He also believes in 'miracles'.
>>>
>>>When I point this out to him, he gets very upset and calls me a criminal
>>
>> You are a liar and a clown - and oh yes, a criminal. You fool nobody,
>> anymore, Harlow. When you bleed to death, only I will care, because it's
>> going to cost a lot of time and money to bring you to justice. Don't you
>> dare croak on me, you wretched beast!
>>
>
>You're uttering the death throes of the defeated.
>You'll now claim "VICTOLLY!" and, hopefully, run away.
because you are a blind sheep without a leg to stand on.
Harlow can't win because, well, Harlow *never* wins. He just calls
everybody names, tells a few lies, reminds people that he's a
scientist, and then proves with his words that he's not.
And me? I can't win because... I DON'T PLAY!!!
LMFAO BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Anywhere you go, go with *all* your heart. Else why go at all?"
HVAC
Jul 14, 2012, 8:20:26 AM7/14/12
to
On 7/14/2012 7:38 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> You're uttering the death throes of the defeated.
>> You'll now claim "VICTOLLY!" and, hopefully, run away.
>
> There cannot be a true victor in this discussion. You cannot win
> because you are a blind sheep without a leg to stand on.
>
> Harlow can't win because, well, Harlow *never* wins. He just calls
> everybody names
I love the hypocrisy of that statement.
>
>>
>> You're uttering the death throes of the defeated.
>> You'll now claim "VICTOLLY!" and, hopefully, run away.
>
> There cannot be a true victor in this discussion. You cannot win
> because you are a blind sheep without a leg to stand on.
>
> Harlow can't win because, well, Harlow *never* wins. He just calls
> everybody names
Mike Lovell
Jul 14, 2012, 12:27:57 PM7/14/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-07-14, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
> And me? I can't win because... I DON'T PLAY!!!
>
> LMFAO BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
Oh but you do, and you lost!
> And me? I can't win because... I DON'T PLAY!!!
>
> LMFAO BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
Your position:
I don't believe
= I lack belief
= Atheist
~ AND ~
I don't lack belief (a double negative everywhere but in his mind)
= I have belief (double negative removed)
= Theist
Impossible.
+
Painius: "'don't lack' isn't a double negative"
Painius: "My position holds true for all supernatural beings that are
believed by some to be superior to human beings"
~ Two posts later on genie question ~
"Superior power isn't the only parameter"
~ Next post when questioned on the change ~
"LOL! It's not I who have been trying to 'move the goalposts'"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
xZQUM4uEDPXVNtfszLASeiUjJXGUphqJG6q9AmiRz1xvP82i5zn3PYSm5UOsJ/0h
oGqCzdn+vl8nKUiXB8POxuWqMSsuaSEOtdo8QE9EsdrZzBH18lO9/pWIcJHr5DLI
NjjmLA3Zg70k7P8yDto=
=Yqea
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Painius
Jul 14, 2012, 10:34:29 PM7/14/12
to
long as they don't put them into practice."
The British found the practice of clitoridectomies in their African
colonies truly deplorable, so much so that they did all they could to
squelch the practice.
That practice went so far back that nobody really remembered why it
was effective. Ask someone indigenous to the area why the practice
was performed, and they would say that it ensured that the girls would
be faithful to their future husbands. Nobody really knew *why* it was
effective, neither the men nor the women. They didn't know that the
practice denied the women of sexual pleasure, only that it effectively
kept the women in tow.
When I worked in Ethiopia back in the 70s, there was amazingly and
mysteriously only one province out of fourteen that did *not* perform
clitoridectomies on their 12-year-old girls. Also, quite strangely,
the name of that area was "Gojam province". So when I first arrived
in "The Big E", the workers who had been there awhile, and who knew
that the women of Gojam province were better lovers because they still
had their clitorises, would jokingly say, "Let's go jam in Gojam!"
The practice is deplorable to outsiders who deem themselves superior
to the Africans, but those people have been practicing it perhaps
longer than any country has practiced circumcision, perhaps longer
even than the invention of war.
Remove the pleasure and stop the cheating. Of course, that doesn't
keep the husbands from cheating, even some of the Muslim men who had
up to five wives!
HVAC
Jul 15, 2012, 8:31:19 AM7/15/12
to
On 7/14/2012 10:34 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> At any rate that particular custom is not religious _per se_, albeit
>> widely condoned by religious authorities in communities that practise it.
>
> And... who are we to judge?
Right. Painus believe that judgement is carried out by a 'non-trivial'
>
>>
>> At any rate that particular custom is not religious _per se_, albeit
>> widely condoned by religious authorities in communities that practise it.
>
> And... who are we to judge?
deity....Not humans. Yet he still denies being a believer. LOL
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jul 15, 2012, 3:10:32 PM7/15/12
to
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:29:56 -0400
> >We must use this equation to unite humankind into respecting each
> >others beliefs. End up with love rather when hate.
> >TreBert
> How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their
> clitoris hacked off, for example?
deities and is an act of love that must be respected at all costs.
I regard it as sexual assult that involves mutilation of the genitals.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Any man may easily do harm, but not every man can do good to another."
-- Plato of Athens
Alex W.
Jul 15, 2012, 7:27:04 PM7/15/12
to
grounds is very much a minority argument and is rejected by the
mainstream of all monotheist faiths. This practice appears to be
a cultural holdover from pre-monotheist days.
casey
Jul 15, 2012, 8:13:58 PM7/15/12
to
impose on society.
Immortalist
Jul 15, 2012, 8:33:00 PM7/15/12
to
On Jul 6, 9:52 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-07-06, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
> >>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>
> >> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>
> >> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
> >> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
> >> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>
> >> How many times do we have to repeat this?
>
> > Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> > in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
> > every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of athiests
> > in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
>
> Here you're making the classic mistake of thinking someone is saying a
> person who is an atheist, has no beliefs (in other things).
>
> Seeing as atheism is merely "I don't believe in God" that's not a
> belief, not a system of beliefs.
>
...Think of our beliefs as being spread throughout our web. Some
>
> >>>Atheism consists of a "system of beliefs", second time today I thought
> >>>of Quine's Web of Beliefs:
>
> >> Oh no not that stupid old chestnut again!
>
> >> My dictionary gives exactly the same defintion for 'atheism' as it
> >> does for 'atheist' so it is not a movement, or an 'ism'
> >> but just simply an alternative word for 'atheist'.
>
> >> How many times do we have to repeat this?
>
> > Until the behavior of atheists in general on discussion groups and you
> > in specific begin to justify your stance. Observations of athiests in
> > every group I've found demonstrates otherwise. Observations of athiests
> > in every discussion group I've found show frequent dogmatism.
>
> Here you're making the classic mistake of thinking someone is saying a
> person who is an atheist, has no beliefs (in other things).
>
> Seeing as atheism is merely "I don't believe in God" that's not a
> belief, not a system of beliefs.
>
beliefs are in the center, some on the edges, and the rest scattered
in between. The beliefs on the edges are those we are most willing to
give up in the face of unexpected observations. The ones in the center
are those we are least willing to give up, those we are most likely to
hold, come what may. For most of us, the belief that tables do not
move themselves is much closer to the center than the belief that we
have not misjudged the distance to the table. A great number of
unexpected observations would have to occur before we would begin to
believe that tables move themselves. As we get closer and closer to
the center, our beliefs seem to be totally protected from unexpected
observations, so protected that we cannot imagine changing them. The
belief that twice two is four, for example, seems entirely immune from
revision.
Although most of us put the same beliefs in the center, it is possible
to put anything there...
Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/
Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas,
attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
Stated differently, two cognitions are dissonant if, considering these
two cognitions alone, the opposite of one follows from the other.
Because the occurrence of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people
are motivated to reduce it; this is roughly analogous to the processes
involved in the induction and reduction of such drives as hunger or
thirst----except that, here, the driving force arises from cognitive
dissonance rather than physiological needs. To hold two ideas that
contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity, and---as Albert
Camus, the existentialist philosopher, has observed---humans are
creatures who spend their lives trying to convince themselves their
existence is not absurd.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cognitive+dissonance
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jul 17, 2012, 3:00:21 AM7/17/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Well, most people do themselves wrong."
-- Charles Milles Manson
Alex W.
Jul 17, 2012, 7:34:15 AM7/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:00:21 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
fossils cropping up (think Halloween, Easter eggs, may pole
dancing, etc), but it had not occurred to me that FGM might be
one such case, particularly since male genital mutilation does
have an expressly religious jsutification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:27:04 +0100
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:10:32 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
>> non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:29:56 -0400
>>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their
>>>> clitoris hacked off, for example?
>>>
>>> According to religious right-wing-nuts, it's the will of one or more
>>> deities and is an act of love that must be respected at all costs.
>>
>> Actually, it isn't. Or at least, justification on religious
>> grounds is very much a minority argument and is rejected by the
>> mainstream of all monotheist faiths. This practice appears to be
>> a cultural holdover from pre-monotheist days.
>
> That's interesting.
I thought so myself. It's far from unknown to have such cultural
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:27:04 +0100
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:10:32 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
>> non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:29:56 -0400
>>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How does one respect the belief that young girls should have their
>>>> clitoris hacked off, for example?
>>>
>>> According to religious right-wing-nuts, it's the will of one or more
>>> deities and is an act of love that must be respected at all costs.
>>
>> Actually, it isn't. Or at least, justification on religious
>> grounds is very much a minority argument and is rejected by the
>> mainstream of all monotheist faiths. This practice appears to be
>> a cultural holdover from pre-monotheist days.
>
> That's interesting.
fossils cropping up (think Halloween, Easter eggs, may pole
dancing, etc), but it had not occurred to me that FGM might be
one such case, particularly since male genital mutilation does
have an expressly religious jsutification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation
HVAC
Jul 17, 2012, 8:11:33 AM7/17/12
to
On 7/17/2012 7:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>
>> That's interesting.
>
> I thought so myself. It's far from unknown to have such cultural
> fossils cropping up (think Halloween, Easter eggs, may pole
> dancing, etc)
Although Halloween and Easter eggs are still popular, I don't see much
>
>> That's interesting.
>
> I thought so myself. It's far from unknown to have such cultural
> fossils cropping up (think Halloween, Easter eggs, may pole
> dancing, etc)
May pole dancing. Unless the current iteration of this the stripper pole?
Also, the town I grew up in (Quincy Ma.) was famous for many things, one
of them being the scandal of the May pole in the Merrymount section.
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1880505049/Dancers-onlookers-gather-at-Maypole-Hill-in-Quincy
0 new messages